Even if I submitted a better headline, I totally agree with this article, having done research on this before. Everyone on Fark will get it too, but redditors will be lost. Next time I submit a headline though, I know it will be greened as the month of TotalFark I bought was completely worth it. When I win the lottery though, I am gonna buy a new house. So many people have new houses since I bought mine 5 years ago, I can't wait to get one. I am going to stay in the same suburb though, as there is so much more crime if your address is in the city that is a 5 minute walk from where I live. And crime has increased at a huge rate, all the news stories are about crime and the terrible economy. At Christmas, my family was just talking about how much more crime there is and even though cousin Timmy disagreed, I know he just doesn't have the right information. He is smart like I am so once he has the right facts, he will agree with us. After all that Christmas indulgence, I have to go on a diet, starting tomorrow. My target is to lose 10 lbs. I know I weigh 120 lbs. more than this time last year, but you gotta start somewhere and 10 is my lucky number, I see it everywhere.

These lists are retarded. Either I'm some sort of freakshow, or they're complete bunk, because they NEVER apply to me. I don't shop on impulse, I don't give a flying f*ck what anyone else thinks (so I won't change opinions based on group think), and I have most assuredly never ever been swept up in mob mentality/bandwagon effect.

This is that effect of suddenly noticing things we didn't notice that much before - but we wrongly assume that the frequency has increased. A perfect example is what happens after we buy a new car and we inexplicably start to see the same car virtually everywhere.

I just started watching Doctor Who about a year and a half ago on a friend's recommendation. It seems to have really catapulted in popularity in the US since then. Is this accurate? Or can I even ask that question here due to Confirmation Bias?

Pepperjack:This one struck a chord with me:Observational Selection Bias

This is that effect of suddenly noticing things we didn't notice that much before - but we wrongly assume that the frequency has increased. A perfect example is what happens after we buy a new car and we inexplicably start to see the same car virtually everywhere.

I just started watching Doctor Who about a year and a half ago on a friend's recommendation. It seems to have really catapulted in popularity in the US since then. Is this accurate? Or can I even ask that question here due to Confirmation Bias?

I think both. I've been watching it since midway through Eccleston's run, and popularity definitely has increased along the way, with big jumps for Tennant and now for Smith (people seem to either love or hate him, but I think he's won a lot of original haters over). But, given that you're now watching it, you probably notice other people talking about it more too, since it's still nowhere nearly as popular as mainstream shows.

I just started watching Doctor Who about a year and a half ago on a friend's recommendation. It seems to have really catapulted in popularity in the US since then. Is this accurate? Or can I even ask that question here due to Confirmation Bias?

If only there were some company that actually measured the popularity of things and expressed them using some sort of rating system, then we could have a real answer, rather than biased anecdotes.

I just started watching Doctor Who about a year and a half ago on a friend's recommendation. It seems to have really catapulted in popularity in the US since then. Is this accurate? Or can I even ask that question here due to Confirmation Bias?

If only there were some company that actually measured the popularity of things and expressed them using some sort of rating system, then we could have a real answer, rather than biased anecdotes.

I work in television so I'm getting a kick, etc. The television ratings are about as accurate as asking five people in the room what their favorite color is and proclaiming purple to be number one in the nation if two of them mentioned it. The sample bases are smaller than their margin of error. Plus it relies (in many markets) on recall and writing things down in a diary. Something older people (50+) are at least a little more likely to do

sure haven't:These lists are retarded. Either I'm some sort of freakshow, or they're complete bunk, because they NEVER apply to me. I don't shop on impulse, I don't give a flying f*ck what anyone else thinks (so I won't change opinions based on group think), and I have most assuredly never ever been swept up in mob mentality/bandwagon effect.

While I doubt your total immunity, the article and subby do fail before it got started. These are not absolute things, these are traps that we can fall into, but are not inevitable.

That they treat them as an absolute makes them seem to fall into similar mental traps.

It's a trend that's really annoying in headlines because it is then based on misinformation and that can be a net deficit to society.

sure haven't:These lists are retarded. Either I'm some sort of freakshow, or they're complete bunk, because they NEVER apply to me. I don't shop on impulse, I don't give a flying f*ck what anyone else thinks (so I won't change opinions based on group think), and I have most assuredly never ever been swept up in mob mentality/bandwagon effect.

And I'm sure advertising has no effect on you, you're completely self-aware at all times, and don't ever use a logical fallacy when in debate.

I work in television so I'm getting a kick, etc. The television ratings are about as accurate as asking five people in the room what their favorite color is and proclaiming purple to be number one in the nation if two of them mentioned it. The sample bases are smaller than their margin of error. Plus it relies (in many markets) on recall and writing things down in a diary. Something older people (50+) are at least a little more likely to do

Ya, now go ahead and explain to me how Donnie Darko makes sooo much more sense when you watch it from the perspective that it's all in his head. Idiot stoners.

roc6783:Even if I submitted a better headline, I totally agree with this article, having done research on this before. Everyone on Fark will get it too, but redditors will be lost. Next time I submit a headline though, I know it will be greened as the month of TotalFark I bought was completely worth it. When I win the lottery though, I am gonna buy a new house. So many people have new houses since I bought mine 5 years ago, I can't wait to get one. I am going to stay in the same suburb though, as there is so much more crime if your address is in the city that is a 5 minute walk from where I live. And crime has increased at a huge rate, all the news stories are about crime and the terrible economy. At Christmas, my family was just talking about how much more crime there is and even though cousin Timmy disagreed, I know he just doesn't have the right information. He is smart like I am so once he has the right facts, he will agree with us. After all that Christmas indulgence, I have to go on a diet, starting tomorrow. My target is to lose 10 lbs. I know I weigh 120 lbs. more than this time last year, but you gotta start somewhere and 10 is my lucky number, I see it everywhere.

Learning about that one bias obliterated any modicum of self confidence that I once had. My only options left are ignorance and arrogance: either I don't know enough to know the right answer, or I don't give a shiat what is the right answer.

(Also, while the effect speaks specifically about the judgment of one's competence compared to others, I interpret more loosely to say that you can't trust your own judgment where your self is concerned.)

Learning about that one bias obliterated any modicum of self confidence that I once had. My only options left are ignorance and arrogance: either I don't know enough to know the right answer, or I don't give a shiat what is the right answer.

Learning about bias turned you into a Randroid?That's horrible.

/You may develop a brain and heart in the future.//Avoid talk radio and anything owned by Rupert.

Pepperjack:This one struck a chord with me:Observational Selection Bias

This is that effect of suddenly noticing things we didn't notice that much before - but we wrongly assume that the frequency has increased. A perfect example is what happens after we buy a new car and we inexplicably start to see the same car virtually everywhere.

I just started watching Doctor Who about a year and a half ago on a friend's recommendation. It seems to have really catapulted in popularity in the US since then. Is this accurate? Or can I even ask that question here due to Confirmation Bias?

I don't know. I've been watching since it I was a little kid. Used to be the only thing on on Sundays so long as there wasn't a thunderstorm between us and WGBH-Boston (cable wasn't available back then). Apparently this was not an uncommon experience, it's just that no one talked about it. Because who wants to admit they were afraid of a nefarious rubber mask and crazy-ass organ music? (I'll admit it: I was)

It does seem to have hit a sort of critical mass in the past year or so though: enough people like it that the very existence of people liking it causes people who would've otherwise ignored it to watch it instead.

I'm sick of armchair statisticians not understanding how coinflipping works. Yes, each toss is 50-50. Overall, it is a 50-50 average of all tosses in a set as well. If I flipped a coin 100 times and every time it came out heads, there is a very high and almost overwhelming probability that the next flip will be tails.

Learning about that one bias obliterated any modicum of self confidence that I once had. My only options left are ignorance and arrogance: either I don't know enough to know the right answer, or I don't give a shiat what is the right answer.

Or you could keep learning about something until you're ACTUALLY good at it.

HotWingAgenda:I'm sick of armchair statisticians not understanding how coinflipping works. Yes, each toss is 50-50. Overall, it is a 50-50 average of all tosses in a set as well. If I flipped a coin 100 times and every time it came out heads, there is a very high and almost overwhelming probability that the next flip will be tails.

No. Each flip is independent of what happened in the previous flips.

It doesn't matter what happened before, 100 heads, 100 tails or any other combination.

Learning about that one bias obliterated any modicum of self confidence that I once had. My only options left are ignorance and arrogance: either I don't know enough to know the right answer, or I don't give a shiat what is the right answer.

Whoa whoa whoa.

Dunning Kruger effect is about self-perception of ability.

Finding an answer or solving a problem is not dependent on self-perception of ability. You try to solve the problem and if you succeed, then you're done. If you fail to solve the problem, you get an estimate of your ability and you can decide on the next step to try to solve the problem.

mr0x:HotWingAgenda: I'm sick of armchair statisticians not understanding how coinflipping works. Yes, each toss is 50-50. Overall, it is a 50-50 average of all tosses in a set as well. If I flipped a coin 100 times and every time it came out heads, there is a very high and almost overwhelming probability that the next flip will be tails.

No. Each flip is independent of what happened in the previous flips.

It doesn't matter what happened before, 100 heads, 100 tails or any other combination.

Bayes says that if you got 100 heads in a row, you ought to be suspicious of the coin, and it's more likely to be a flawed coin than a fair one that kept coming up heads. Any streak past about lg(flips) is suspect.

chrylis:Bayes says that if you got 100 heads in a row, you ought to be suspicious of the coin, and it's more likely to be a flawed coin than a fair one that kept coming up heads. Any streak past about lg(flips) is suspect.

Cats_Lie:This list is missing one of the most important biases, the base rate neglect bias, also called Bayesian revision bias.

Also that bias where mice can beat humans in a game because humans see patterns in randomness?

Basically two buttons. One will give out biscuit with probability 0.6 and the other with probability 0.4.

The mouse figures out that the button with probability 0.6 will give more biscuits and will keep pressing it. So, the rat gets biscuit 0.6 of the button presses.

Humans on the other hand try to see patterns and try to figure out the system (even though it's random) and actually get less than 0.6 biscuits per button presses because they alternate between pressing the 0.6 and 0.4 buttons to figure out the pattern.

sure haven't:These lists are retarded. Either I'm some sort of freakshow, or they're complete bunk, because they NEVER apply to me. I don't shop on impulse, I don't give a flying f*ck what anyone else thinks (so I won't change opinions based on group think), and I have most assuredly never ever been swept up in mob mentality/bandwagon effect.

mr0x:The probability of getting 100 heads is the same as getting a particular sequence like HTHTHHTTTTTHTTH.... (100 tosses long).

Take any sequence of tosses. The probability of that sequence occurring is the same as the sequence of all heads occurring.

I like how you repeatedly limit it to singular sessions of 100 tosses.

Say you do that 100 toss thing 100 times.

10/90(+/- 9) splits will be less common than something closer to 50/50(+/- 9).

As you reach higher numbers of tosses, law of large numbers becomes more relevant.

From that Wiki:The LLN is important because it "guarantees" stable long-term results for random events. For example, while a casino may lose money in a single spin of the roulette wheel, its earnings will tend towards a predictable percentage over a large number of spins. Any winning streak by a player will eventually be overcome by the parameters of the game.

Similarly, any losing streak will eventually be overcome by the parameters of the game.

If you bet heads, and lose, then double down(for the sake of a coin flip, like that cheesy casino in one of the lampoons movies) a bet every time, you will win your losses back(over 2x for profit), eventually. In theory it is sound, but people do not have unlimited amounts of money to wager and money will run out before they win.

That is the gamblers fallacy. Eventually =/= soon

May not be so bad in a coin flip(could conceivably do it with a handful of tries with some regularity), which is why casino's don't use a coin toss.

omeganuepsilon:mr0x: The probability of getting 100 heads is the same as getting a particular sequence like HTHTHHTTTTTHTTH.... (100 tosses long).

Take any sequence of tosses. The probability of that sequence occurring is the same as the sequence of all heads occurring.

I like how you repeatedly limit it to singular sessions of 100 tosses.

Say you do that 100 toss thing 100 times.

10/90(+/- 9) splits will be less common than something closer to 50/50(+/- 9).

As you reach higher numbers of tosses, law of large numbers becomes more relevant.

From that Wiki:The LLN is important because it "guarantees" stable long-term results for random events. For example, while a casino may lose money in a single spin of the roulette wheel, its earnings will tend towards a predictable percentage over a large number of spins. Any winning streak by a player will eventually be overcome by the parameters of the game.

Similarly, any losing streak will eventually be overcome by the parameters of the game.

If you bet heads, and lose, then double down(for the sake of a coin flip, like that cheesy casino in one of the lampoons movies) a bet every time, you will win your losses back(over 2x for profit), eventually. In theory it is sound, but people do not have unlimited amounts of money to wager and money will run out before they win.

That is the gamblers fallacy. Eventually =/= soon

May not be so bad in a coin flip(could conceivably do it with a handful of tries with some regularity), which is why casino's don't use a coin toss.

I agree with you.

But, statistics is different than probability.

The difference is that when you let things go large and towards infinity, it become different.

You have to make the distinction between a sample and a statistic. 100 heads in a row is a sample, whereas 50/50 head/tails is a statistic.

Yeah, old news is old, but that wasn't a bad rehash of flaws in thinking. I once worked for a terrible manager who believed that negative outcomes of previous decisions must predicate any current decision. Regardless of changing circumstances.

Learning about that one bias obliterated any modicum of self confidence that I once had. My only options left are ignorance and arrogance: either I don't know enough to know the right answer, or I don't give a shiat what is the right answer.

Or you could keep learning about something until you're ACTUALLY good at it.

Also, keep in mind there's also an inverse of the D-K Effect out there: When you're actually good at something, what that usually feels like to you is that you're just OK at it, and everyone else sucks at it.

If you want to counter the effects of D-K, you only need to lowball your estimates of how good you are at things, not reduce those estimates to zero. You can also seek outside evidence and form an informed opinion as to your capabilities.

Learning about that one bias obliterated any modicum of self confidence that I once had. My only options left are ignorance and arrogance: either I don't know enough to know the right answer, or I don't give a shiat what is the right answer.

Learning about bias turned you into a Randroid?

I wasn't aware randroids are characterized by a lack of self confidence. Indeed, I should think a sense of personal inferiority would be quite antithetical to a philosophy where one believes one is personally responsible for all of his bounty.

Benni K Rok:Or you could keep learning about something until you're ACTUALLY good at it.

Finding an answer or solving a problem is not dependent on self-perception of ability.

I did not say I was incapable of action, only that I cannot trust my self judgment. I must always assume that my reach or my actions result in something short of my intended goal, even (and indeed most especially) when there is a lack of supporting evidence. To compensate, I can either say I don't know how that goal was to be reached (the ignorance), or that I don't care that I failed to achieve the intended goal (the arrogance).

Perhaps I lack for sufficient reinforcement; but then, it easy to dismiss compliments when I personally recognize their falseness. The individual might have meant it sincerely, but because I'm seemingly much more aware of my mistakes, they tend to fall flat. The very few things I do well (and they aren't particularly useful things, at that) come so naturally that you may as well compliment the color of a man's thumbnail. Or that aptitude came at such a ridiculous cost that praising it cuts a little too deep.

In the end, it's just an easy excuse.

But look at me here; what is this, group support? If these issues are true, I'd expect they'd cost a few hundred dollars an hour to root out, not simply an idle post on Fark. A few words aren't going to compete with 20 years of suffering harangue and harassment at the sound of my internal monologue.

Learning about that one bias obliterated any modicum of self confidence that I once had. My only options left are ignorance and arrogance: either I don't know enough to know the right answer, or I don't give a shiat what is the right answer.

Learning about bias turned you into a Randroid?

I wasn't aware randroids are characterized by a lack of self confidence. Indeed, I should think a sense of personal inferiority would be quite antithetical to a philosophy where one believes one is personally responsible for all of his bounty.